Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 429 (ALL)

Kumari Pratibha v. Additional Commissioner

2020-02-07

ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The instant writ petition arises out of a mutation case under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, filed by the petitioner and seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the District Magistrate, Hathras on a revision filed by the third respondent as also the order dated 23.10.2018, whereby the petitioner's revision under Section 219 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act filed against the order of the Collector, has been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the land in question is plot no.1545 area 3.770 hectares, in village Kaumari, Tehsil Sasani, District Hathras, which was recorded in the name of one Mahaveer Singh. 4. On his death, his widow Bhagvan Devi came to be mutated over it. On the death of Bhagvan Devi, PA-11 entry was made on 13.10.2014 in favour of five sons and two sons of pre deceased son of Mahaveer Singh. 5. On 22.11.2014, one of the persons mutated namely, Neeraj Kumar, the son of the pre deceased son of Mahaveer Singh sold his 1/12 share in the land in question to the third respondent. 6. On 11.9.2015, a mutation application was filed by the petitioner claiming to be the unmarried daughter of Mahaveer Singh. 7. The Tehsildar vide order dated 11.09.2015 directed that the name of the petitioner also be mutated along with other heirs of Mahaveer Singh. 8. Against this order, passed by the Tehsildar, a revision was filed by the respondent no.3, Rambeti, alleging that she had purchased the share of Neeraj Kumar by means of a registered sale deed and mutation proceedings on the basis of the sale deeds were pending. 9. The other co-tenure holders were not permitting the mutation case to proceed and were filing frequent transfer applications. The other being that the order of the Tehsildar dated 11.9.2015 was product of collusion between the co-tenure holders as the petitioner was a married daughter and therefore had no right to succeed of Mahaveer Singh on the death of his widow. For the same reasons, the order of the Tehsildar was liable to be set aside. 10. The District Magistrate, the second respondent, vide order dated 28.09.2017 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Tehsildar and restored the PA-11 entry. 11. For the same reasons, the order of the Tehsildar was liable to be set aside. 10. The District Magistrate, the second respondent, vide order dated 28.09.2017 allowed the revision, set aside the order of the Tehsildar and restored the PA-11 entry. 11. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred a revision, which has been dismissed. 12. The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that she is an unmarried daughter of Mahaveer Singh and therefore, the orders impugned in this writ petition are patently illegal. 13. The second contention raised is that Rambeti was not a party in the mutation case, which culminated in the order dated 11.09.2015, which was in favour also of the petitioner. She therefore, had no locus to challenge the same. The revision has wrongly been allowed by the Collector, despite the fact that it was not maintainable and the consequential revision of the petitioner has wrongly and illegally been rejected. 14. In so far as the contention that the petitioner is an unmarried daughter of Mahaveer Singh, the same has been considered and discarded by the District Magistrate on the observation that the petitioner was as per the evidence on record, aged about 34 years and that her son is aged about 16 years. Since, the married daughter comes lower in the order of preference under Section 171 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Ac, the Tehsildar by directing that the name of the petitioner be also mutated over the land recorded in the name of Mahaveer Singh and thereafter his widow Rambeti, was illegal. 15. The contention that the respondent no. 3 was not a party in the proceedings has also been considered in the impugned orders and it has been held that although she was not a party, her rights stood affected by the impugned orders passed also in favour of the petitioner, as she had purchased 1/12 share of one of the heirs of Mahaveer Singh, namely, Neeraj Kumar, which share would therefore, stand reduced. 16. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders nor in the reasoning given therein. 17. There is yet another ground why no interference is called for. 16. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders nor in the reasoning given therein. 17. There is yet another ground why no interference is called for. The proceedings wherefrom the writ petition arises are summary mutation proceedings, which do not determine the title of the parties, thereto and any person aggrieved is always competent to sue for declaration in his or her favour. 18. In view of the foregoing and since no ground for interference is made out, the writ petition is without force and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.